Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

Author
Topic: The Future Of HIV/AIDS In America (Read 5035 times)

ABC NEWS talks to a doctor about the future of HIV/AIDS. I believe one of the main headlines from this interview is the doctor saying people who take drug holidays are responsible for the growing number of drug resistant strains being transmitted. I'm wondering what he means by "bodily secretions" as a way to pass the virus. I think he should have been more clear about what he was talking about as many will think that also includes sweat.

wow, I really hope he knows more transmission theory than he lets on. But I doubt it.

And I disagree. It isn't the people taking drug holidays (way to villify the Pozzies) but rather the people who A) don't know their status and B) bareback based on a D?D UB2 profile on mancunt.

Christ, the stupidity is exhausting.

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

"But what's happening is that we have people that are on medication, they're feeling better, a lot of people are going off their medicine, so the virus that is being spread now days is actually virus that is resistant to medications."

WHAT??? Does anyone here know ANYONE who went off their meds because they felt better? What a load of crock. People go off their meds when they make them feel like shit.

Or when they lose their ADAP or insurance coverage. Or when a natural disaster like Katrina happens and nobody gives a damn about making sure people with hiv continue to receive their meds.

And did anyone get a load of what meds they had on display in the bottles? Retrovir and Invirase, both of which the use of is in decline due to side effects, and Hivid which was discontinued in 2006 because of the awful side-effects.

And there he sits saying people go off their meds because they make them feel BETTER. Arrrggghghg

Another thing that really pissed me off is how he put the responsibility for condom use squarely on the shoulders of women without even a mention of men needing to step up to the plate and use them as well.

I know first hand how difficult it can be for a woman to convince a guy to wear a condom. It can even put you in physical danger.

Verdict - this guy is a moron. I hope he doesn't work with any poz bods.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

You know, I was almost feeling sorry for him when he was tripping all over himself during the bit where he was talking about transmission, thinking the studio bosses had warned him about using words like condom , ejaculate and vaginal fluid and he was trying to find the words to get around his restrictions.

But when he got to the part where he told women THEY must be responsible for condom use and never mentioned men in the same context, I realised that it was all just his OWN squeamishness, shame and ignorance. What a jerk.

And that woman was sitting there lapping it up. Whatever happened to responsible journalism?

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

I can only think of a few reasons why someone would take a drug holiday...

1. The side effects for them were just too nasty.2. They lost insurance and went through a period of not being covered.3. The medicines stopped working.

He made it sound like taking a drug holiday was a fun thing, like Bermuda, as opposed to a last ditch resort of someone that doesn't have another choice.

There is also:

Depression over long term meds, the stigma around HIV and the demeaning life of someone on disability

Diminished cognitive ability due to long term HIV infection

I am certain there are other reasons as well, those two came to me as I was watching the ABC news piece.

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

ABC NEWS talks to a doctor about the future of HIV/AIDS. I believe one of the main headlines from this interview is the doctor saying people who take drug holidays are responsible for the growing number of drug resistant strains being transmitted. I'm wondering what he means by "bodily secretions" as a way to pass the virus. I think he should have been more clear about what he was talking about as many will think that also includes sweat.

Please don't believe everything you here and see and ABC-TV after all it's owned by the Walt Disney Corp.

But a lot of people WILL believe what they heard come out of that man's mouth. The woman interviewing him was certainly lapping it up.

Another thing that I don't think was correct is his claim that 30% of new infections show drug resistance. I can't believe it's that high but to be honest, I don't feel like trawling through Google right now to find the answer.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Well we all know that being a denialist about HIV-Meds almost always = DEATH and isn't recommended, the "see what happens" without taking them is what really gets to me

They weren't HIV denialists, just "in denial" -- major difference.

Let's put it this way, I've known people who just so royally sucked with medication adherence that they decided rather than to risk developing resistance issues they'd just stop full on for a while. I guess in that way, if you're cd4s are high enough, you can do it as long as you still monitor yourself. The one friend I'm thinking of did this fine for a few years, but then he got really sloppy with maintaining watching his numbers and ended up with PCP though fully recovered now and back on meds. I don't think he'll try out his medical theories anymore.

Some people can be very... uh, "creative" with their HIV treatment. Some people get away with it, or for a while, others don't. I don't have the luxury to indulge in such shenanigans so I'm very by the books about all of this. Though he denies this, I'm quite sure he went off meds for a period as he watched my face sink in more and more over the years.

A puff peice designed for the morning coffee set, and nothing more. Sadly, its not reasonable to hold Good Morning America to a higher standard of reporting for HIV related issues than a lot of other things it does. It repeatedly framed the issue for heterosexuals and women because those are the the majority of viewers of the show. It avoided discussions of access to healthcare as causes of "drug holidays" because the demographics who watch the show probably don't want to hear a justification for universal healthcare. Common sense and a legitimate discussion of public health concerns toook a backseat in a six minute blurb designed to catch people's attention and hold it long enough to watch from the commercial for Stevia to the commercial for Onstar, just before Janet piled into her Volvo to commute out of Chesterfield or Schaumburg or wherever. Demonizing pozzies as the cause of more virus because we're just living too darn long and pretending as though the phrase "HIV cocktail" glamorizes HAART did little more than validate the mindsets of the people who watch the show. The physician was even identified as an "MD-VIP primary care doctor", as though the show forewarned those in the know that his profesional exposure to the virus was minimal.

"I can't tell you how many times in the recent past I've heard people say AIDS is over"...who the hell does this woman talk to?

Another thing that I don't think was correct is his claim that 30% of new infections show drug resistance. I can't believe it's that high but to be honest, I don't feel like trawling through Google right now to find the answer.

A recent estimate came in at a little under 15%. The lessons say 5% to 20%.

AIDS: 15 May 2010 - Volume 24 - Issue 8 - p 1203Ė1212doi: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e3283388742Epidemiology and SocialPrevalence of transmitted drug resistance associated mutations and HIV-1 subtypes in new HIV-1 diagnoses, U.S.-2006Wheeler, William HAbstractObjective: To determine the distribution of HIV-1 subtypes and the prevalence of transmitted drug resistance-associated mutations (TDRM) among persons newly diagnosed with HIV-1 infection in the United States.

Methods: We used sequence data from Variant, Atypical, and Resistant HIV Surveillance (VARHS) collected from newly diagnosed persons in 10 states and 1 county health department in 2006. To evaluate TDRM, we used a mutation list for surveillance of TDRM appropriate for the primarily subtype B HIV epidemic in the United States.

Results: Sequences were obtained from 2030 of 10 860 persons newly diagnosed with HIV in 11 surveillance areas. Mutations associated with transmitted drug resistance occurred in 292 (14.6%) persons; TDRM associated with a specific drug class occurred in 156 (7.8%) for non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, 111 (5.6%) for nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and 90 (4.5%) for protease inhibitors. There were no significant differences in prevalence of TDRM by demographic characteristic. The HIV-1 subtype B was the most prevalent subtype occurring in 1922 (96.2%) persons; subtype C (1.3%) was the most prevalent non-B subtype.

Conclusion: We presented a clade B-optimized mutation list for evaluating surveillance of TDRM in the United States and analyzed the largest collection of sequence data obtained from individuals newly diagnosed with HIV. The prevalence of TDRM in persons newly diagnosed with HIV is higher than in previous U.S. studies; however, this is not necessarily a significant trend. Continued reporting of sequence data for public health purposes from all sources will improve representativeness and accuracy in analyzing trends in transmitted drug resistance and genetic diversity.

A puff peice designed for the morning coffee set, and nothing more. Sadly, its not reasonable to hold Good Morning America to a higher standard of reporting for HIV related issues than a lot of other things it does.

What's sad is that you do not expect a popular show like Good Morning America to present facts when discussing a serious issue like hiv/aids in their segment called Good Morning America Health. Good Morning America Health presents itself as a reliable source of information but when it came to hiv/aids, they were woefully lacking.

I'd love to hear the national outcry if they portrayed similar distortions of the truth concerning a diabetic's adherence to diet and insulin self-injection.

Hiv is not fluff; it's a serious health concern. If Good Morning America Health cannot present the real facts, they should do their health fluff pieces on pieces of fluff. Maybe a demonstration of how to kiss a boo-boo better. Or better yet, maybe they should leave health concerns off their show. I certainly know I wouldn't trust anything one of their so-called experts ever said again.

It repeatedly framed the issue for heterosexuals and women because those are the the majority of viewers of the show.

As if none of the stay-at-home straight AND gay dads, or stay-at-home unemployed straight AND gay men don't watch morning television. There are currently many out-of-work men in America today. As if none of the people at home watching telly in the morning have sons, nephews or grandsons - some of whom WILL be gay - who may benefit from what that adult learns and can pass on later.

It avoided discussions of access to healthcare as causes of "drug holidays" because the demographics who watch the show probably don't want to hear a justification for universal healthcare.

No, access to healthcare didn't have to come into it. He didn't have to say something so misleading when he simply could have said that some people quit the drugs because of side effects or adherence issues. That's the main truth of the matter. The amount of people who quit taking the meds after their health has been restored and they are feeling better (no sides) is very small indeed.

Let me remind you what he said. It was as though he were reading off a list that looked like what I have written below. The emphasis which I added in bold, he added with his hand and head gestures. And he did it on purpose. He was quite pleased with the shocked reaction he got from the woman interviewing him.

1. we have people that are on medications. (slight pause)2. they're feeling better (slight pause)3. a lot of people are going off the medications4. so the virus that is being spread now days is reistant to the mediacation.

Whereupon you can hear the woman say "Wow!" (in a very OMG I can't believe it that's so stupid tone of voice) and he says "Correct! Your eyes went like this!" (indicates with his hands that her eyes opened wide in surprise at our stupidity) When he said "correct", he was being pleased that he got his message through to her that we're all a bunch of stupid, irresponsible people who go off meds for our own selfish reason and infect anyone in our path with a resistant strain of the virus. That is EXACTLY the portrait he wanted to paint.

He made people living with hiv out to be idiots - dangerous idiots - rather than people doing their best to struggle with real-life issues.

Common sense and a legitimate discussion of public health concerns toook a backseat in a six minute blurb designed to catch people's attention and hold it long enough to watch from the commercial for Stevia to the commercial for Onstar, just before Janet piled into her Volvo to commute out of Chesterfield or Schaumburg or wherever.

Again, this segment of the show is billed Good Morning America Health This segment is NOT meant to be an attention catcher for whoever those C list celebrities your talking about, it is meant to inform. Therefore, the guest expert is meant to impart facts, not distortions of the truth and outright falsehoods. As Assurbanipal showed us, the doctor's claim that 30% of new infections are resistant viruses is plainly wrong. (thank you A for digging that up for me)

Demonizing pozzies as the cause of more virus because we're just living too darn long and pretending as though the phrase "HIV cocktail" glamorizes HAART did little more than validate the mindsets of the people who watch the show.

Do you think they have the right to distort facts in order to validate the mindset of those who wish to see us demonised? Because when I read the above comment in context with the rest of what you've written, that's the only conclusion I can reach.

The physician was even identified as an "MD-VIP primary care doctor", as though the show forewarned those in the know that his profesional exposure to the virus was minimal.

Did you bother to Google MDVIP? (there's no hyphen) It's an organisation The following four doctors are listed on the MDVIP website. They were a few that I found who listed credits in the field of hiv/aids. I have taken their hiv related achievements from their profiles and displayed them here, so you may better compare and contrast. Click on their names to view their full profile.

The doctor who appeared on Good Morning America Heath is the last man on the list.

When it comes to hiv/aids, he has no education, no certifications and has not done any volunteer work. He has no hands-on experience with hiv patients. He sits on boards. He's one of those people who holds high-up positions in the field of hiv but would cringe if you or I sat next to him. That was pretty apparant when he was attempting to talk about transmission.

Sadly, the transmission part of his segment was THE MOST IMPORTANT part and he just didn't measure up.

When it comes to hiv/aids, Rodriguez is really nothing more than a pencil pusher. Gee, that figures. But that's still a far cry from your original premise... what was it again? Oh yeah...

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

This guy was my DR. for over 10 years when I lived in Orange County. He was a great DR.Say what you want, he was the best DR. I ever had, and I liked him very much. He was a Doctor who paved the wave for PWA to be accepted at Hoag Hospital. He fought like hell for us. I personally saw him yell at hospital staff for not treating PWA's like everyone else. This guy is on our side folks.

I think some of this piling on is unfair. Fine, debate what he said and challenge the facts if you like. But he is a good man, and a good DR. And he cares about every patient.

He is not evil. Don't judge someone from a damned two minute interview. Enough already.

If he's on our side, then why is he making out like "a lot" of people are going off their meds when they feel better and then going out and infecting other people with resistant strains of hiv? The statistics don't support what he's saying.

People going around saying what he's saying could be very damaging to the fight for increased ADAP funding. Ever think of that?

And he could have done a much better job when he was discussing hiv transmission. My daughter could have done better.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

If he's on our side, then why is he making out like "a lot" of people are going off their meds when they feel better and then going out and infecting other people with resistant strains of hiv? The statistics don't support what he's saying.

People going around saying what he's saying could be very damaging to the fight for increased ADAP funding. Ever think of that?

And he could have done a much better job when he was discussing hiv transmission. My daughter could have done better.

Doctors...........LOL I learned thur the yrs to actually take everything they say w/ a gain-of-salt, if I listened to everything they told me to do, and what not to do, I'd be in a Metal institution just trying to decipher all of that crap they spew, it get's VERY CONFUSING, and they should realize this, but, sadly a lot of them don't, oh and one more thing I'd like to add, these ID-Doctors, how can they be on our side when they say dumb shit like this, and have never had a decease that they have been fighting & struggling with forYEARS like a lot of us have done, you tell them you have NASTY SIDE EFFECTS for all of the Meds, but, they all look at you in disbelief , and are totally DUMB FOUNDED as to how they should treat you for these I'd had one tell me ,"well I'm treating your AIDS, what more do you want from me" they are not on our side, at least not those kind of Doctors..........

« Last Edit: October 03, 2010, 04:39:23 PM by denb45 »

Logged

"it's so nice to be insane, cause no-one ask you to explain" Helen Reddy cc 1974

People going around saying what he's saying could be very damaging to the fight for increased ADAP funding. Ever think of that?

Really Ann? How so, exactly?This whole tread seems like much to do about nothing.

Just got around to watching the video - and the only thing I agree with the doctor on is that education is key and just as important today as it was when the virus first was identified....it is even more important after listening to this video....

This prominent doctor potentially set HIV education back about 20 years. His use of terms such as "contracting HIV by sharing bodily fluids" is disturbing -- without better explaining and going into further detail. His putting responsibility almost completely on women to insist on use of condoms was sexist and irresponsible.

How did he potential hurt future ADAP funding? By saying that a lot of people on meds have quit taking them. Conservatives will run with this as a reason not to fund a program when people are not being medication adherent - why should money be put into a program, if people are going to go off their meds... Also, why put money into a drug assistance program if 30% of those newly infected are being infected with a medication resistant strain? These are arguments that those who wish to decrease or hold steady ADAP funding can use and they can cite the quotes of a prominent doctor.

Finally, this thread is not "much a do" about nothing -- this is an HIV website, HIV forum and this was an individual in a position of recognition speaking directly about HIV and making statements that could easily be mininterpreted to the harm of those now with HIV or those who may contract it.

He had a large audience listening and had the ability and responsibility to appropriately disseminate information - in my opinion, his body language... the smiling and the content of his part of the discussion bordered on arrogant and destructive. While it is only a two or three minute interview - it was an interview with a large reach and potentially very damaging effect on people's understanding of HIV and on future treatment. Whole civilizations have been damaged in less time.

Between the extremely vague "bodily secretions" with no explanation, putting the responsibilities of condom use on women alone, and saying that pos people on drug holidays are continuing the spread of the virus and not saying anything about the importance of everyone getting tested.

Sorry folks. You are blowing a two minute interview WAY out of proportion. Set back 20 years? That's a reach by any standard. OK. Keep on bitching. If we fight each other like this, our movement will be set back 20 years in no time.Get over it and move on.

I don't know how contributing my opinion on the doctor's comments on national tv constitutes bitching.At any rate, at least I know if my opinion is off-base it isn't being broadcast across the nation on a popular morning tv show.

Add kidney or liver failure to the list till the organs regain function enough to try a new regimen. I guess that was number one.... side effects.

Yup, but I think you made it more specific and realistic, Granny. The way that Lobo wrote it sounds like the run-o-da-mill "spooky dream" or dizziness that some Accripla patients complain about.

Logged

"I have tried hard--but life is difficult, and I am a very useless person. I can hardly be said to have an independent existence. I was just a screw or a cog in the great machine I called life, and when I dropped out of it I found I was of no use anywhere else."

Sorry folks. You are blowing a two minute interview WAY out of proportion. Set back 20 years? That's a reach by any standard. OK.

Keep on bitching. If we fight each other like this, our movement will be set back 20 years in no time.

Get over it and move on.

Hey Jeff,

Nobody here is saying he is a bad man, but his segment was full of untruths and insinuation. He referenced bodily secretions as vectors of HIV transmission and many people equate that with sweat and spit. His comments regarding stopping drugs, has the potential to do great damage to HIV funding, because as others said, his comments will be used against us. I appreciate all he has done for PWAs, however, for all his experience, he could not even mention the fact that there are many reasons that folks stop taking HIV drugs and not just because they feel good.

I ask that you step back and try and see his segment for what it was. Comments by a general practice physician, with no formal HIV training nor experience, speaking for our community. Having lived through the 80s, I can tell you that his words will come back to haunt us. Many people are just looking for a new excuse to reduce HIV services funding and he just gave them a bucket load of ammunition.

He said "Saliva has enzymes that kill the virus. So kissing is not a danger." Did you miss that?

You say he has no experience? He was the leading HIV Dr. in Orange County for the past 20 years. Please don't tell me he has. He was my DR. for over a decade,and he did more for breaking down HIV barriers than anyone I have ever known.

Having lived through the 80's I can tell youthat his words will not come back to haunt us.

You say he "gave them a bucket load of ammunition." Well this is a myopic statement.

The Pope, if anyone, set us back with his coming out against condoms. Where was the outrage then?

You are really taking this personally. No one has insinuated that he is a bad clinician. If you say he was a great doctor to you and others, I will take that a face value. However, being a good clinician does not mean one will be a great "promoter". He may not have meant to do what many who listened fear -- that is set things back, but if you can't even see how his ill chosen words might do that, then you are letting your past experience with him cloud your ability to really listen to this clip.

In Dr Rodriguez's profile/resume on the MDVIP website, no where does he indicate any sort of clinical training or hands-on experience of treating people with hiv, unlike his colleagues. He only lists the various boards he has sat on. Oh, and one hiv related award I missed when I compiled the list above. (sorry)

While I do not doubt for a minute that he was your doctor, I do wonder why he would leave such vital information off his profile/resume. He was quick enough to add his celebrity spot on Good Morning America Health. That credit wasn't there when I posted (reply#17) but it is there now.

And I never said he was evil.

Maybe we're all too close to the subject to be objective. But what I saw was a doctor using false statistics and clever manipulations to gleefully paint us all as dangerous idiots. I don't get it.

It's not like I first watched the video hoping for a reason to be outraged. On the contrary, I was hoping to be heartened. But only a minute or so in I found my jaw dropping to the floor in disbelief.

As for the transmission bit of his segment, I still feel the same way as I did when I posted about it earlier in the thread:

You know, I was almost feeling sorry for him when he was tripping all over himself during the bit where he was talking about transmission, thinking the studio bosses had warned him about using words like condom , ejaculate and vaginal fluid and he was trying to find the words to get around his restrictions.

But when he got to the part where he told women THEY must be responsible for condom use and never mentioned men in the same context, I realised that it was all just his OWN squeamishness, shame and ignorance. What a jerk.

And that woman was sitting there lapping it up. Whatever happened to responsible journalism?

That was my perception of his interview and I stand by my statements. I can only imagine what someone with no or very limited knowledge of hiv (most people who are hiv negative) thought about people living with hiv thought after viewing.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Mike,You are correct. I am taking this personally. In 1998, he got us into the NIH to get access to the latest drugs. In 1999, when her liver failed, he fought like hell to get her a liver transplant, no easy task in 1999. He went above and beyond and helped me fight for my wife's life.My insurance company refused to pay for the operation, and she died soon after.There is much more to the story, but I thought I should explain this in the spirit of full disclosure.

I will always have the utmost love and respect for Dr. Rod.

And hey, I'm still around after 25 years, so yeah, I guess I am taking this too personal. Didn't mean to offend anyone.

In Dr Rodriguez's profile/resume on the MDVIP website, no where does he indicate any sort of clinical training or hands-on experience of treating people with hiv, unlike his colleagues. He only lists the various boards he has sat on. Oh, and one hiv related award I missed when I compiled the list above. (sorry)

This is factually incorrect. He lists that he was President of the AAHIVM. Perhaps you are not aware of this, but you don't get to be President of a professional organization without being a member. Taking the time to look at his listing in the organization shows he continues to be listed as being a certified practitioner. And a simple google search brings up his web page with a list of his clinical experience.

You seem to be reading an awful lot into the fact that he lists only his most prestigious accomplishments on his marketing page on a web site. That he has done more things than can be listed comfortably on a single page should not be held against him.

You seem to be reading an awful lot into the fact that he lists only his most prestigious accomplishments on his marketing page on a web site. That he has done more things than can be listed comfortably on a single page should not be held against him.

Honestly? The fact that he has more experience than meets the eye makes me even sadder about the way he came across in his interview. I can't fathom what he was trying to achieve by demonising us. That's certainly how it came across to me; your experience may have differed.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts